It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all). We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

Only the first 2 movies are apparently The Hobbit proper. The third is largely materials from the Return of the King appendices that Tolkien used to flesh out The Hobbit storyline later. Smaug is in the second film.

jackalKnight: Only the first 2 movies are apparently The Hobbit proper. The third is largely materials from the Return of the King appendices that Tolkien used to flesh out The Hobbit storyline later. Smaug is in the second film.

Yeah, my understanding is the third movie is used as the 'bridge' between the Hobbit and LotR as well as slipping in a lot of the background lore from the appendices.

+1 to the OP for the giveaway, but I have to admit that my reaction to the movie was only lukewarm. I didn't think it was bad, but I certainly didn't think it was awesome either. Just 'okay'. Probably worth the money to see in the theater, but I wouldn't pay to see it again and I'm certainly not on pins and needles for the next one.

Elmofongo: Best Blockbuster movie of the year for me, it even beats Avengers.

Not for me, but I think this is a situation of expectations. I had no desire to see The Avengers and was really stoked for The Hobbit. I think that's why I feel the former was better entertainment than the latter, since The Avengers was a really pleasant surprise for me, while The Hobbit just had too many things that bugged me and detracted from my expectations for it.

Elmofongo: Best Blockbuster movie of the year for me, it even beats Avengers.

Coelocanth: Not for me, but I think this is a situation of expectations. I had no desire to see The Avengers and was really stoked for The Hobbit. I think that's why I feel the former was better entertainment than the latter, since The Avengers was a really pleasant surprise for me, while The Hobbit just had too many things that bugged me and detracted from my expectations for it.

This may sound completely stupid but:

I have the book itself (borrowed it from my brother's girlfriend) and I have not read it even after I watched the movie, and I am certain that if I read the book before watching the movie my expectations would have been dissipointing.

I have the book itself (borrowed it from my brother's girlfriend) and I have not read it even after I watched the movie, and I am certain that if I read the book before watching the movie my expectations would have been dissipointing.

No, not stupid at all.

I read the book about 35 years ago and have read it probably a dozen times since. I think it's only natural to pick out differences between the literature and the cinematic adaptations of it for any movie adaptation. Having said that though, this isn't really the issue I have with the movie. It's the inconsistency of tone and the artistic license taken with some of the background material that really bothered me. I do expect variation from book to film, so I'm always braced for that, but this one just went beyond the bounds of what I personally thought was reasonable, I guess.

*edit* I think I'm actually one of the rare few that seems to like reading a book before seeing a movie. I tend to enjoy movies far better that way. Most others, it seems, like to do it the opposite way. At least from my experience.

Coelocanth: Not for me, but I think this is a situation of expectations. I had no desire to see The Avengers and was really stoked for The Hobbit. I think that's why I feel the former was better entertainment than the latter, since The Avengers was a really pleasant surprise for me, while The Hobbit just had too many things that bugged me and detracted from my expectations for it.

Elmofongo: This may sound completely stupid but:

I have the book itself (borrowed it from my brother's girlfriend) and I have not read it even after I watched the movie, and I am certain that if I read the book before watching the movie my expectations would have been dissipointing.

Read the books.

I think my top unexpected movie was cabin in the woods. Also I didn't think that Christopher Nolan could top The Dark Knight, but he did.

I read the book about 35 years ago and have read it probably a dozen times since. I think it's only natural to pick out differences between the literature and the cinematic adaptations of it for any movie adaptation. Having said that though, this isn't really the issue I have with the movie. It's the inconsistency of tone and the artistic license taken with some of the background material that really bothered me. I do expect variation from book to film, so I'm always braced for that, but this one just went beyond the bounds of what I personally thought was reasonable, I guess.

*edit* I think I'm actually one of the rare few that seems to like reading a book before seeing a movie. I tend to enjoy movies far better that way. Most others, it seems, like to do it the opposite way. At least from my experience.

Oh gosh. We share a brain. I completely agree. I didn't not like An Unexpected Journey because it was inaccurate to the book (though it was) but mostly because I thought it was a rather bad movie (unlike the LOTR movies which are inaccurate but good movies).

Also I also try to read books before I see a movie - at least if I've heard good things about the book before hand. If it is something that I just know is a book but haven't been told I need to read it first then I will likely just see the movie.

SheBear: Oh gosh. We share a brain. I completely agree. I didn't not like An Unexpected Journey because it was inaccurate to the book (though it was) but mostly because I thought it was a rather bad movie (unlike the LOTR movies which are inaccurate but good movies).

Also I also try to read books before I see a movie - at least if I've heard good things about the book before hand. If it is something that I just know is a book but haven't been told I need to read it first then I will likely just see the movie.

Ah, we are kindred spirits indeed, then. I find reading a book before seeing the movie based in it allows me to fill in any gaps, I have a good grasp of character motivation and the overall plot of the story, and this only serves to enhance my enjoyment of the movie. It completely baffles me when people say they much prefer to read the book after seeing the movie and not before.

Anyway, yeah, as far as the Hobbit is concerned, I really didn't find it was where they deviated from the book that bothered me. It was a bunch of other things that just made it an 'okay' film and not the great movie I was expecting.

Count me among those who felt lukewarm about the movie. I didn't mind the light-hearted tone, and some scenes (the riddle game in particular) were actually pretty effective. But there were two major problems that I felt dragged the movie down. First, they dragged in too many extraneous side-plots and tie-ins to the larger Middle Earth mythology. The Hobbit is a small-scale story, and adding too much epic background just dilutes it - whether you see him or not, Smaug should be the looming threat in the back of our minds, but oh shit, the Necromancer's coming back, and oh no, Captain Hook the Orc, and dragon? What dragon? Oh right, there was also a dragon in this story. That's cool, I guess. But seriously, what's the deal with this Necromancer?

The second major issue was that Jackson, with his characteristic lack of restraint, felt the need to turn absolutely everything into a major action setpiece. For example, from what I recall, the Rock Giants get barely a passing mention in the book - they're just there to lend a bit of fantasy colour to the storm on the mountain. Jackson turns them into a full-blown extended action scene, and yeah, it's pretty cool, but the problem is that it you can feel that it doesn't belong in the movie. It does nothing to advance the plot, and if it was cut from the movie, you'd never notice. It's just there, and all the extra padding just bleeds the dramatic tension out of the movie. It feels more like an amusement-park ride than an attempt to tell a story.

Okay, I lied, I actually have three major objections. Jar-'Jar the Brown? Seriously?

So, yeah, I didn't hate the movie or anything, but at no point did it have me going "F--- YEAH!". And it really should have.